Jim wrote:Moore appears as a saint and has been indicted by the Washington Post, not any jury, on charges that can never be corroborated, just as in the Thomas case.

Actually, if you'd have bothered to read the article in the Post, which clearly you did not, you would discover that there is considerably more corroboration from considerably more people who were eyewitnesses, than there ever was in any accusation made by the extremist right wing media against Clinton. You can call the Post a lot of things, but these aren't people who print anything unless they can back it up with facts. Note that Jim's long rant contains not a single piece of corroborating evidence or support.

Moore wasn't just controversial because of his ten commandments monument. He has a record of corruption and self-serving political actions, across most of his career.

To understand fake news one can go here to find one of the Post's biggest frauds ever: https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/the_fab ... nalism.php. The same thing happened at the New York Times when reporter Jayson Blair simply made up what was supposed to be facts in a similar tear-jerker. The WP gave up Cooke's Pulitzer and in the process learned also how she had lied about her background. Neither "news" organization can be trusted to print the truth and has defamed Moore in bringing to light accusations that can't be corroborated, especially by any so-called eyewitnesses. Cooke's fraud had the mayor and the police looking for this non-existent kid. The Cooke LIE might never have been exposed except that somebody called out the Post. Both papers are propaganda machines for people like Bill and Hillary. People condemn Moore and practically genuflect before these outright frauds. Imagine a president having perverted exercises right in the White House--not to mention his payoff to Paula Jones of $800,000 for doing what Moore is accused of. These are the folks for whom the Post is an active gofer. If Bill was innocent enough to be president, maybe Moore is good enough for the Senate.

Rvaughn wrote:The aggressive part may be related to "more money". The firm I referenced in my previous post can, I believe, dig up anything that exists on anybody. But you have to be willing to pay for it. (Of course, WAPO and NYT probably does their own work.)

Maybe I’m naive, but the WAPO or NYT (or any other reputable news outfit) do not get any money specifically for fact finding on specific candidates or political points. They are just doing their constitutional role of finding important facts to inform the public. If they do so consistently and reliably, their standing will increase and add to their readership/advertising and thus their income. Now there are non-reputable tabloids that do spend money to find sensational stories and even create fake news (e.g. National Enquirer, the Globe). And then their are non-reputable ideological “news” websites that solicit funds from rich ideologues to dig for dirt on candidates or create false facts that promote their ideology (e.g. Breitbart, Huffington Post).

But you cannot put the WAPO into either of these non-reputable categories.

Here are PunditFacts cuts at the truthfulness of Breitbat and Huffington.

KeithE wrote:Maybe I’m naive, but the WAPO or NYT (or any other reputable news outfit) do not get any money specifically for fact finding on specific candidates or political points. They are just doing their constitutional role of finding important facts to inform the public. If they do so consistently and reliably, their standing will increase and add to their readership/advertising and thus their income. Now there are non-reputable tabloids that do spend money to find sensational stories and even create fake news (e.g. National Enquirer, the Globe). And then their are non-reputable ideological “news” websites that solicit funds from rich ideologues to dig for dirt on candidates or create false facts that promote their ideology (e.g. Breitbart, Huffington Post).

My reference in the previous post was to my assumption that WAPO, NYT and such spend their own money on research through paying their journalists to do the fact-finding that they do (and report) on specific candidates (though my wording must have been confusing). But I did mean to say that on the larger national playing field you are dealing with newspapers that have more money. No doubt there are also times that folks come to them.

That said, I don't trust the impartiality of WAPO, NYT, Breitbart, Huffington Post, Houston Post, or any of the rest of them -- though I believe some are more so than others.

What I originally referenced, though (in the first post that mentioned it) was firms that do fact-finding work on political candidates for political candidates/parties. They are usually hired to research the opposing candidate.

Ed: RL, I am with you, when you say " I don't trust the impartiality of WAPO, NYT, Breitbart, Huffington Post, Houston Post, or any of the rest of them -- though I believe some are more so than others. "

Hopefully some form of documentation will show up, in which case it really WILL nail it, but even without that it's a very damaging piece for the Moores (I do try to bear in mind that this all affects Kayla and the rest of the nuclear and exploded family). And Sessions of all people says he has "no reason to doubt" Moore's accusers.

I read this with grief for the Moore family, for his supporters who want so much to believe in him, and for the women who now are telling their stories when they are in their forties. I listened to an interview with one accuser this morning who was identified by name and her husband's name. She was very believable because it was so hard for her to tell the story even this long after the alleged events. If nothing went on, she deserves an Oscar.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

KeithE wrote:Maybe I’m naive, but the WAPO or NYT (or any other reputable news outfit) do not get any money specifically for fact finding on specific candidates or political points. They are just doing their constitutional role of finding important facts to inform the public. If they do so consistently and reliably, their standing will increase and add to their readership/advertising and thus their income. Now there are non-reputable tabloids that do spend money to find sensational stories and even create fake news (e.g. National Enquirer, the Globe). And then their are non-reputable ideological “news” websites that solicit funds from rich ideologues to dig for dirt on candidates or create false facts that promote their ideology (e.g. Breitbart, Huffington Post).

My reference in the previous post was to my assumption that WAPO, NYT and such spend their own money on research through paying their journalists to do the fact-finding that they do (and report) on specific candidates (though my wording must have been confusing). But I did mean to say that on the larger national playing field you are dealing with newspapers that have more money. No doubt there are also times that folks come to them.

That said, I don't trust the impartiality of WAPO, NYT, Breitbart, Huffington Post, Houston Post, or any of the rest of them -- though I believe some are more so than others.

What I originally referenced, though (in the first post that mentioned it) was firms that do fact-finding work on political candidates for political candidates/parties. They are usually hired to research the opposing candidate.

The Washington Post and the New York Times deal in facts, which they document, and confirmed sources. Conservatives and extremist right wingers don't like them because they tell the truth about them, but they are pretty straightforward about everyone. As always, the proof is in the pudding. If you can find something in either publication that's not accurate, and you've got facts, point it out. So far, no one here has pointed to a single thing that either of them reported that was false, or not factual. Most conservatives aren't interested in facts, they are only interested in media that will tell them what they want to hear. The Post and the Times are not guilty of that with any side.

Sandy, I stand by the fact of what I said. I doesn't trust their impartiality (but trust some more than others), which is not the same as what you are responding to.

I have no doubt that that these people are saying what they said and that it is reported accurately. What they said may be true. I have some doubts about several things I've heard, but I also have doubts about Moore and what he has said. Since I don't vote in Alabama, I'm not inclined to pursue it as much as if it were someone I would be voting for or against here in Texas. In the end, it will not matter what Democrats or Republican "true believer" voters think, but who convinces the independents, the voters in the middle, those on the fence. Either way, we as a country will be stuck with whichever U.S. Senator Alabama elects.

Dave Roberts wrote:I read this with grief for the Moore family, for his supporters who want so much to believe in him, and for the women who now are telling their stories when they are in their forties. I listened to an interview with one accuser this morning who was identified by name and her husband's name. She was very believable because it was so hard for her to tell the story even this long after the alleged events. If nothing went on, she deserves an Oscar.

The latest caterwauling lady shown extensively all over TV had her lawyer right beside her probably to help her keep her place in reading her statement while wiping her tears. It was a fantastic performance but one wonders why she needed a lawyer just to announce her event. She hadn't been convicted of anything, so why the lawyer? Maybe she was gearing-up for a financial bonanza in case something dirty and believable could actually be dug-up by anybody on Moore. It's a lead-pipe cinch that every MSM newsie is hard at work to find anything to use against Moore. Look for more opportunists to bring charges, just as in the other current plethora of white-male-criminals-mistreating-women phenomena. The old "protesteth too much" syndrome is about to kick-in since many of these ladies knew just how things were done and were probably often going along to get along (especially in the entertainment world cesspool). If felt deprived of a job, she can tell the MSM anything and she will automatically be believed, as well as by a bunch of dense Congress-people who hate thinking about Moore in the Senate. Belief is not the issue. Actual evidence of wrongdoing is.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the Times and right wing media sources is that the Times, along with the Post and most mainstream media sources, admit when they've made a mistake. They are far more factual, and reliable, than right wing and conservative sources.

Sandy wrote:So far, no one here has pointed to a single thing that either of them reported that was false, or not factual.

I believe Jim did, a few posts back. I don't think he pointed to any evidence that they tried to cover it up or lie about it, but yes, they have published untruths at times.

Jim pointed to one event, one story, one reporter from 40 years ago. Let's talk about anything that the Post or Times have wrong here. They have multiple sources with dates, times and circumstances that are corroborated. They uncovered this while looking into Moore's background and career, which has plenty of white supremacy, abuse of power and misconduct to cause concern. Let's apply the same standards of measuring the credibility of accusers that was applied to the women who accused Bill Clinton. Moore's accusers are more credible.

If we're keeping count, I believe Jim pointed out three, at least two.

Sandy wrote:Perhaps the biggest difference between the Times and right wing media sources is that the Times, along with the Post and most mainstream media sources, admit when they've made a mistake. They are far more factual, and reliable, than right wing and conservative sources.

Sandy wrote:Perhaps the biggest difference between the Times and right wing media sources is that the Times, along with the Post and most mainstream media sources, admit when they've made a mistake. They are far more factual, and reliable, than right wing and conservative sources.

But not left wing and liberal sources?

Most "left wing" and "liberal" sources work extremely hard to be fair, and in spite of their bias, to report accurately. There's a lot of rhetoric about the liberal, left wing media, but it comes from sources that think they are biased simply because their reporting is not always favorable toward conservatives. But the separation between the editorial page and the news pages is usually pretty easy to see.

Interesting note that Stephen might find fascinating. His good friends in Alabama, Yellow Hammer News, has backed off an endorsement of Roy Moore, and announced that they believe the accusations. That's huge,

I don't know Yellowhammer from Redsaw, so I looked them up. Not sure why you are referencing them, since they are news and analysis "from the principled conservative perspective." According to your theory above, that means they are neither factual nor reliable.

Rvaughn wrote:I don't know Yellowhammer from Redsaw, so I looked them up. Not sure why you are referencing them, since they are news and analysis "from the principled conservative perspective." According to your theory above, that means they are neither factual nor reliable.

When an extremist right wing media source acknowledges that the mainstream media is correct, that's a big development. Fox News has also seemed to concede that the facts point to Moore's guilt in this case, and to the credibility of an increasing number of women coming forward, each of which corroborates the others.

Jim had to dig up one forty year old instance of a single reporter "going rogue" when it came to an investigation, one which the newspaper itself corrected when the facts were available. I have yet to see an extremist right wing source acknowledge when they were wrong, and they've been wrong on so much, that it would take half their broadcast time to elaborate and apologize. Fake news is the culture in which the right wing media lives. Because they intentionally put a spin on every story to support a view they've already taken, they are caught with their pants down, so to speak, when the facts are verified. I don't expect Breitbart to ever acknowledge any of the facts in this case, but for Yellowhammer to come out this way is an indication that there is acknowledgement in the extremist right wing that there's a problem. It's also encouraging to note that there are still some in the Christian right who actually still value character over politics.

William Thornton wrote:Jim missed on this one. I don't see much of anyone not treating these reports as credible.

I think Breitbart is about the only one. Other than Stephen's friend, John Killian, it seems that the reaction among the Southern Baptists in Alabama is realistic disappointment. These aren't characteristic of wild, random accusations. And it's Alabama, so the odds are pretty good that some of these ladies are also good Christians, and are sitting in a First Baptist Church somewhere on a Sunday morning.

Rvaughn wrote:I don't know Yellowhammer from Redsaw, so I looked them up. Not sure why you are referencing them, since they are news and analysis "from the principled conservative perspective." According to your theory above, that means they are neither factual nor reliable.

Yellowhammer is known to be a very conservative Alabama news outlet. Sandy’s point is that even the very right wing Yellowhammer (I know it though it principal opinion writer J Pepper Bryars who gets a column in most Huntsville Times papers). It is shockingly conservative and had been a strong voice for Roy Moore for years, but yesterday dropped it’s support for Roy Moore. He is now calling for Gov Kay Ivey or the state Republican party to find another candidate.

Roy Moore isn’t the only Alabamian who can carry our conservative ideas to the senate and vote the way we wish. There are others.

So now it’s up to our leaders – Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, Alabama Republican Party Chairman Terry Lathan, and the members of the party’s steering committee.

They owe us voters some options, and where there is a political will, there has to be a legal way.

Void.

Postpone.

Cancel.

Sue.

All of the above.

Whatever it takes to put another Republican’s name on that ballot, because conservatives like me – and we’re growing in number every hour – cannot vote for the one on there right now.

Yellowhammer has not been a fact-based news source; all I read from Bryars is one-sided propaganda using a special brand of sarcasm full of cheerleading for the conservative mind's entertainment. Yellowhammer’s founder Cliff Sims now works in the WH as an assistance communications director for Donald Trump including a sick Facebook Trump praising machine - I cannot recall any White House using funds for such a praise machine. It comes from Trump’s narcissism.

Speaking of Trump - his hands are tied - any mention by Trump of Moore sexual indiscretions will only point the light on his own past behavior.

Rvaughn wrote:I enjoy it when you guys can't say anything good about a conservative source, except when they agree with you! Makes me think it is more about agreeing with you than about the source.

I can recall ever saying anything good about a conservative source, and I'm glad to see you left out the word "news" because they're not. I'm pointing out the perspective which must exist among their constituency if they are agreeing with what the mainstream media sources are saying. As this particular story has developed, there's been speculation as to how much of Moore's core support would drop off based on something that ran in the Washington Post or the New York Times. When conservative media sources like Fox and Yellowhammer also acknowledge the truthfulness of the reports, it doesn't mean I'm complimenting them. It means I'm pointing out that even the core supporters are dropping. But even in hard right Alabama, the core support wouldn't have been enough to win a statewide election without some independent support. Most independents don't believe the populist perspective about mainstream media sources, so they are inclined to change their opinion when something like this comes out. The fact that some of the ultra right wing extremist sources are also saying they believe the accusations gauges where Moore's support is coming from and confirms the most recent polling data showing him trailing the Democrat by 12 to 15 percentage points consistently.

I believe that the extremist right wing media, from Rush Limbaugh to all of his AM radio wannabees, to Breitbart, Fox News, Salem, USA Radio network, CBN, are all much more propaganda than news, and specialize in spin more than facts. More than any single personality, Rush is responsible for the polarization, hatred and bigotry that drips from these sources.

I think he is a member of if not Vestavia Hills, the same church former Bama Bap Editor Baggett was member, though son Mark, a sterling CBFfer is at Riverchase, teaches English at Samford and came to Collinsville in 2002. I got pictures of the preachers wife chewing him out while Pastor Morgan is foamin at the mouth at another presenter. I think David Currie had already made it to the vestibule safety zone.

But that was 15 years ago and they allowed me to attend a good friend's wedding last week, first time in the sanctuary, on the property for that matter in 11 years.

But I digressed. Burgess this morning says it is a certainty Moore will be elected, and though they backed Strange in the Primary, they are with Moore now.

So that is the face of Rick Lance's SBC in Bama at the moment.

Stand with Roy.

NPR had Ed Stetzer on this morning to explain it all from his Chair at Wheaton. He thinks Moore should step down, but apparently the Bama SBC hasnit got the memo yet. I think it was 97 when Russ Moore came to Bama with my friend John Killian in the room to trash my friend Vicki Covington, the Novelist from Southside Baptist Church where Truett preached in 41 or so and Hugo Black was a member. Vicki had a column in the Bham News in 94 or so on the funeral of Davey Allison and praised my Dad's first cousin Max Helton who was Chaplain to Nascar and spoke. Our Helton cousin Brad Fullington is now running for Congress in the district that covers Jeff City and Carson Newman. He is Rockie's legend Todd Helton's first cousin.

I think Brad thought his grandmother shoulda been ordained Churchagod Preacher so that puts him at odds with Rick Burgess and Steve Gaines, though I am not certain on that point; just exegesis, Now Testament interpretation which Judge Pressler said I could do.

Since Hannity turned his program into a Bill Clinton Juanita Broaderick retrospective last night; is it time to bring up Judge Pressler, a big fan of Roy Moore and explore Baylor's WJ Wimpee and others reservations about 41's nominee to US Ethics Department. David Corn in the Nation mag said those reservations grew quite "randy"; but Russ Moore's predecessor the fat boy said dismissed it all as poor losers.

BTW, Vicki Covington's husband wrote the book on snake Handling, Salvation on Sand Mountain. UTenn Press has a new book on the subject by Julia Duin.